[SSSD] [PATCH 0/3]: New utility functions/headers

Simo Sorce simo at redhat.com
Mon Jan 9 20:01:15 UTC 2012


On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 14:45 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 14:34 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:52 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:37 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:36 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:27 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 12:58 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2012-01-03 at 18:00 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > > > > > >From [PATCH 0/0] A shared memory cache to perform better:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 0/3: New utility functions/headers
> > > > > > > > These are also quite straightforward but they are useless without the
> > > > > > > > later patches
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Nack.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Your implementation doesn't match the original:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > From MurmurHash3_x86_32():
> > > > > > >     h1 = h1*5+0xe6546b64;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > From this patch:
> > > > > > >         h1 = h1 + 5 + 0xe6546b64;
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I can only assume that s/*/+ is not going to yield proper results :)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > OUPS, well it will give *different* results, but consistent.
> > > > > > Anyway I'll fix it and send back a fixed patch.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I fail to understand why you use (nblocks * 4) instead of 'len', given
> > > > > > > that nblocks was defined as len/4
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Because (nblocks * 4) != len and it is 3 times out 4 < len :-)
> > > > > > Remember nblocks is an integer, so any fractional part is lost, which is
> > > > > > what we want here, we want to process len - (nblocks * 4) remaining
> > > > > > bytes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > While I know that it's a fixed value, I'd rather see sizeof(uint32_t)
> > > > > > > instead of '4' in getblock() (for readability and clarity)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Ok.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Attached a patch with the requested code changes addressed.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I think you resent the old patch
> > > 
> > > I think you are right.
> > > 
> > > Let's try again.
> > 
> > Ok new revision.
> > 
> > First patch just fixes one building warning in the testes.
> > 
> > Second patch adds a new tests for checking that the hash returns the
> > same value (deterministic) and it does it by hashing each time a random
> > value so that we always test the function with a different value and
> > have greater coverage (may catch if specific values cause the hash
> > function to fail).
> 
> Ack to both. Note to committer: patches are not lexically ordered, so
> they need to be manually ordered when applying.

Pushed to master.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York




More information about the sssd-devel mailing list